________________
166
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JUNE, 1906.
The Thüpavamsa, which comes down to us in Singhalese and in Pāli, is closely allied to
the Mahābodhivamsa and preserves the epic form. Its contents range from P. 92.
the history of the early Buddhas to the death of Duttbagamani, As regards the relation between the two versions, we may say that on the whole the Singhalese is broader and more detailed than the Pāli. In Chapters X.-XVI. the one seems a mere translation of the other, but in the history of Buddha the Singhalese makes considerable additions and amplifications. The author in his epilogue calls himself Vächissara and mentions 0_OK that he is connected with the Dhaamāgåra of the king Parakkama, giving the
* names of a number of oiher works composed by him in Singhalese. He had two Thupavatsas before bin one in Singaalese, and hence of use only for the natives of Ceylon; the other in Pali, but so defective as to necessitate a fresh working out. I am of opinion that this Vachissara was none other than the famous Thera of that name, spoken of in Mahavamsa, LXXXI. 18 ff. He was an ecclesiastical chief under Vijayabāhu III. (1236--1240) and his power may well have continued under the next king Parakkamabāhu II. (1240-1275). We have thus secured a date for the Pāli Thūpavamsa, viz., the middle of the thirteenth century A. D. The Singhalese version is to be regarded as a later extension of the Pāli text: for priority cannot be proved, and internal evidence points otherwise, as does the analogy of the Mahabodhivamsa. It must have followed quickly after the Päli version; for Parākrama Pandita, the author of our Singhalese version, is mentioned in the Rajaratnākara in the list of learned priests and laymen who flourished between the time of Buddhaghosa and 1809 after Buddha = 1266 A. D. This work must have been, composed, therefore, between 1250 and 1260.
The usual sources were drawn from in the composition of the Pāli Thüpavamsa, vis., the Jātaka-Nidänakathi, the Samanta-Päsädikā, and the Mahāvaṁsa : and more sparingly the Commentary on the Mahavamsa. Other sources, as in the case of the Mahabodhivamsa, may be traced, and it is not impossible that, where an authority is not named, the Atthakathi may have been consulted, either directly or by the medium of the old Päli Thüpa vamsa (probably the Chetiyavansatthakathā, which at all events was in close accord with the Aţt hakathā literature).
9. - Singhalese Writings. The most comprehensive of these is the Pūjávali, which is not yet completely edited, but
which, as we can see from Wickremasinghe's analysis, consists of the usual P. 99.
* material in the usual arrangement. The author, Mayurapäda Thera, wrote in the second half of the 13th century and was a contemporary of Dhammakitti Thera by whom the Mahāvamsa was continued.
The Nikayasangraha of Dhammakitti shews in the general arrangement of material and in particular instances its dependence on the same sources. The history of the sects is treated in greater detail here. We learn, for example, that the Sāgaliya sect branched off from the Dhammaruchi of the Abhayagiririhāra and bore the name of their leader Thera Sagala. They had their seat in the Dakkhiņagirivihāra. This took place under Gothābhaya, 795 years after
Buddha's Nirvana, i. e., in 252 A. D. The record of the writings of the
" separate sects is entirely new. The source for these additions I cannot name, but merely remark that the Kathāvatthu-ppakarana-Atthakatha does not so much as mention the Sāgaliya.
Of especial interest is the dream of Kālāgoks and his dialogue with the Theri Nandā. This is taken directly or indirectly through an unknown source from the Atthakatha (f. the Commentary, 108, 8 on Mabāvamsa, IV. 38 ff.).
P. 99 f.
